How often have we heard Jesus’ words and how little do we live them. But what does it mean to love your enemies and do good to those who spite you? I saw a social media posting that declared that these words of Jesus were out of date. That post was from a Christian, BTW!
Jesus was unfairly put to death. Thousands of Christians were martyred. In these times such acts would be decried for their injustice. Nowadays turning the other cheek might represent our turning to look for a good lawyer.
A literal reading of Jesus words on such subjects (see Chapter 5 of the gospel of Matthew) might suggest that the devotee accepts abuse and injustice meekly, forgiving seventy times seventy as Jesus recommends. You’d have a hard time finding any Christian who does that. Or who even should! Why?
Is that Christian social media posting the new interpretation? Have things changed? Let’s consider.
In the past two or three thousand years, human civilization has been strictly stratified by caste, position and status. Obedience to higher authority was expected and not questioned. Warfare and violence were common and unpredictable. Loyalties frequently shifted from one to another. Unless one’s destiny was to rule and thus to conduct warfare, the only feasible and useful attitude and practice was endurance and forgiveness. Jesus’ acceptance of the will of the Father in submitting to his crucifixion was the example given to Christians to emulate. Not surprisingly, Christian “civilization” flourished on either conquer or be conquered because you either turned the cheek or swung hard. In the highly stratified society of the medieval centuries, few could swing at all. (It was the same everywhere, of course.)
Beginning In the nineteenth century attitudes began to change. Paraphrasing Swami Sri Yukteswar’s predictions of change, men began to feel self-respect and began to assert their God-given rights.1 Education, travel, communication and admixture of cultures brought a sense of empowerment to seek “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Standing up for one’s self is a given in these times. Taking it on the chin is not.
It’s not that Jesus’ words no longer apply. Rather, it’s HOW to apply them to our lives. It’s as if in the past we were not a person; not a human being and had no individual rights or existence. Now we do. Now boundaries exist between us.
If someone violates our boundaries we respond. If we are a devotee and affirm the Vedantic “We are ONE” does this mean we revert to not being a human being? I hardly think so. The Vedantins are among the most courageous and compassionate human beings anywhere.
In “Autobiography of a Yogi” the author, Paramhansa Yogananda, wrote that his guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar “even….[resorted to] instigating…lawsuits” to protect his properties from unscrupulous persons. Yogananda himself and Swami Kriyananda (and Ananda) had to defend themselves against lawsuits designed to bankrupt or otherwise destroy them.
When monks or nuns left the Order, Yogananda counseled the remaining monastics to let contact with their former friends go lest they, too, be influenced or tempted to leave the monastery.
In none of these cases, is the counsel to hate or war against anyone. But reasonable self-protection (whether, as appropriate, spiritually, organizationally, or financially) can be appropriate boundaries in the spiritual effort to remain focused on one’s loyalties and chosen spiritual path.
Passive acceptance of abuse or false accusations can amount to enabling wrong behavior. Even the Vedantin must accept that in this world of duality, boundaries have their place. Only those who as individuals wander alone the lanes of human commerce can afford to become wholly invisible and untouched. Those who have, at the invitation of the guru, come together to serve the work of the guru also take on the opportunity to give that work form and substance and thereby, by the nature of the world, find themselves at times defining and even defending that form.
One of the branches of Ananda Seattle came to a point less than a year ago of declaring their independence from the leadership and direction of Ananda. This declaration had certain consequences and the spiritual directors of Ananda worldwide clarified that the nature and direction and organizing spiritual principles of Ananda’s worldwide work precluded continued affiliation and association with Ananda. While this clarification does not apply to individuals, it must be understood that their declaration of independence was not limited to organizational affiliation but also the very core of Ananda’s spiritual guidance, the expression of Yogananda’s work and our practice of discipleship which is the heart of the teachings.
The question arose whether the principle of ahimsa (peace-affirming non-violence) demands that the two organizations affirm their commitment to ahimsa by an act(s) of outward, public cooperation. There’s no absolute answer to this question but the simple fact of the one branch choosing to be independent suggests that remaining independent both in fact and in appearance is the best course of expressing peaceful co-existence. Why seek to publicly cooperate with a group that has rejected affiliation with us? I suspect this conclusion is as mutual as it is natural under the circumstances.